From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ac8a7e7d3e637dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-23 11:33:33 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is there a better (Ada) way? Date: 23 Oct 2003 11:33:33 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <20619edc.0310231033.1d856ed7@posting.google.com> References: <20619edc.0310221056.4c92d10c@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 154.6.152.68 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1066934013 23071 127.0.0.1 (23 Oct 2003 18:33:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:33:33 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1532 Date: 2003-10-23T11:33:33-07:00 List-Id: sk wrote in message news:... > Mike Silva : > > ... sure I'm not writing "C in Ada" ... > > I was playing with an assembler written in Ada a while > ago. I also played with a small kernel. > > After trying many awkward Ada ways, I came to the > conclusion that sometimes the "C" (masking, shifting > etc) way was a lot cleaner to look at, read and maintain > than hammering it into an "Ada way" of doing it. > > So maybe, at the bit-twiddling level, C-in-Ada might > not be a bad way to go. > I understand what you're saying, but I do want to force myself to do this in the spirit of Ada for the learning value. Maybe I'll learn that you're right! :)